CCBC defence

arnestogeman

The industrial estate has a gym on it with designated bays that was visited and was probably a member of. Where the car is parked is on the same industrial estate 20 metres away. Can it be argued that by having the right to go to the gym allows the use for the whole of the estate. The sign doesn't say that particular bay and is the same for the rest of the estate.

Fruitcake

What was the reason for issuing the claim? Was it for not parking within a marked bay? It looks like the sidewall of the nearside tyres are over the white line, but there is nothing to shown whether the part of the tread touching the ground was touching the line.

Johnersh

No idea why the o/p hasn't actually shared the allegation of breach. Its not like the claim form or correspondence won't say why they say the t&cs were breached. I mean we can guess, but o/p you're not making it easy for people to give reliable comment. 

That said, assuming the o/p was not authorised, arguably the sign only applies to authorised cars and permits the parking company only to ticket for failure to park within the bay.

It doesn't actually offer parking to anyone else it is "authorised vehicles only" with a penalty for breach of the requirement to remain in bay.

If it never offered parking, it could never be complied with. If it was an offer open to all (as was the case with beavis) it could have offered a licence to park for £100. For reasons known unto themselves, that is not how the contract was drafted. 

As the ppc is invariably not the landowner, they are likely unable to come after the o/p for trespass. 

arnestogeman

Fruitcake the reason for the charge is unauthorised parking.

arnestogeman

This is the original notice

arnestogeman

This is the defence statement so far. The rest of the items are as per the template.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.     It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The defendant does admit to being the driver of the vehicle at the time of parking.

The Driver was attending a business situated on xxxxxxxxx as they had done so from 26th September 2018 to 13th of August 2019. And parked on site as per NTC’s ‘’Authorized Personnel’’ signage

The Defendant is a customer of the industrial Estate and was therefore authorized to park on site. No signage states otherwise to the specifics of what classifies as authorised parking.

 

3.  The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon.  Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3.  That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA 2015') legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71.  The Defendant avers that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 in Sch2.  NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

any comments?

KeithP

Isn't your para 3 identical to para 4 in the template?

Redx

Agreed , 3 should be where it says , The driver

arnestogeman

My bad. Lots of re edits. Thxs for spotting.

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The defendant admits to being the driver of the vehicle at the time of parking.

 3.  The defendant at the time of parking attended the xxxxxxxxxxx of which the defendant was a member. The defendant parked the car on the industrial estate in a designated parking bay and proceeded to the fitness centre. The NTC parking T&C notice signage was seen and heeded. The contract stipulates

“authorized vehicles only” The defendant complied with this as the attendance was to the industrial estate. There is 1 entrance off the highway and there are no internal barriers or signs differentiating businesses on the estate or off the estate.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine.